Delhi High Dismissed the Anticipatory bail due to the nature of gravity of offences committed.
Title: RAKESH KUMAR vs State (GNCTD)
Reserved on: 17.05.2023
Pronounced on: 14.07.2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 1571/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Introduction
Delhi High Dismissed the anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of CrPC on the grounds of nature of gravity of offence.
Facts of the case
The prosecution’s assertion of the case’s facts is that the complainants are the actual and legal owners of the subject property, which is identified as C-132 (Old Number: C-143) Plot No. 1-2, Amar Colony, Block C, East Gokul Pur, Delhi, and totals 345 square yards of ground.
As stated GPA dated 18.09.2019 had been recorded in Register No. 1774, Book No. 4, Volume No. 1 at the Sub Registrar’s Office in Vivek Vihar, New Delhi. It is also said that the complainant, Jai Prakash Pal, is claiming ownership of an additional 105 square yards of the subject property with the parcel number C-132 through his daughter Sarita, who acquired it under a GPA and agreement to sell dated 12.09.2001. According to Register No. 1775, Book No. 4, Volume No. 266 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi, the GPA in favour of Jai Prakash Pal from his daughter Sarita has also been recorded.
It is claimed that Jiten Mahajan, the complainant, became the owner of the subject property as a result of a GPA that his father, Sukhdev Raj Mahajan, allegedly completed in his favour for land having the number C-132 and measuring 240 square yards in Plot No. 1-2, Khasra No. 796/705/2, Block C, Amar Colony, East Gokul Pur. Furthermore, it is stated that the complainant’s father issued a gift deed and a possession letter/will in his favour regarding the aforementioned property.
The complainants contend that they learned that the accused and his friends were attempting to interfere with their control of the property in question and had already inhabited it. After the incident was reported, the current case, FIR No. 283/2023, was created.
Analysis of the court
It should be noted right away that there is no disagreement regarding the identity of the property in question, despite the petitioner’s learned senior counsel’s contentions that the Khasra Nos. are different and the properties are different properties during the course of the arguments. However, according to the petitioner’s paperwork, the properties in question are the identical ones for which the current FIR has been lodged against the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the property in question was sold by him on 29.12.2022 to four persons by way of sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- but the petitioner has not even placed a single document on record in regard to this money transaction and has even failed to submit as to how this amount was paid to him by the buyers of the property in question.
Conveyance deed dated 3.11.2022, according to DDA, is a falsified document. On the basis of this conveyance document, the petitioner later sold the property against a registered sale deed. On the same date, 12.01.2023, Deputy Director (PC-104) of PM-UDAY notified the SHO of PS Laxmi Nagar about the forged and fabricated conveyance deed dated 03.11.2022 in favour of the present petitioner using the name and style of DDA. Even DDA had cancelled the forged conveyance deed dated 03.11.2022 that is in the name of the petitioner herein.
The petitioner has relied on GPA dated 26.08.1994, GPA dated 06.02.1985, GPA dated 10.07.1985, and GPA dated 30.05.1989 to establish the title to the property in his favour. The petitioner has also cited a sales agreement signed by Smt. Rewti Dass on May 30, 1989. The examination of these documents reveals that they have been notarized, but the notary’s seal is not legible, and even the name, enrollment number, and registered number have not been mentioned on these notarized documents. In these circumstances, the petitioner must be interrogated in custody to uncover the conspiracy and learn how these documents were notarized, as well as whether a particular notary is in existence and whether the entries are present with the notarial seal.
The FIR against the petitioner has been lodged under Sections 420/467/468/471/447/448/120B/34 IPC, and the maximum punishment is up to life in prison. The charges against the petitioner are grave and serious in character. Because there is no evidence supporting bail, the application is denied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta